[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem -

I can't say what Lush was thinking or feeling, since I can't get inside her head (or anyone else's for that matter). And I may be looking for something from this thread that she did not envision. Yet I do have problems with something I believe you are saying. If I am incorrect in my assumptions, you can straighten me out.

First, in any thread dealing with gender, it seems that the discussion always veers off onto extremes: with one person suggesting that the other fails to appreciate Tolkien, is asking him to write a different book, or should simply go read another work, which they may find more to their liking. I don't think that's what we're discussing here. There have been any number of threads voicing sharp criticism of one or more aspects of Tolkien's writings: his poetry, use of language, depiction of Elves, contradictions between differing parts of the Legendarium, etc. Yet it's very unusual if one person would question the "loyalty" of another reader by suggesting they are asking the author to turn his work upside down. I do think the role of women in the Legendarium should be approached with the same seriousness and respect as other legitimate topics. It is not "off base" or to be dismissed simply because Tolkien might have disliked it (not that you or I can read his mind!) Perhaps, if we can set emotion aside, we are really getting back to some serious questions raised in the canonicity thread: to what extent does the interpretation of a tale lie in the hands of the reader, and to what extent is it the provence of the author alone. I find myself in the middle of this equation, not only on this question but many others.

I do feel that there has been a lot of oversimplistic reaction on this thread, and on other threads where this subject has been raised in the past, at least in the last four years. I think you are correct on one point. If we admit that the discussion of this topic has sometimes been irrational or laden with emotion (probably on both sides of whatever fence exists), the more important question remains what comes next? It isn't enough to groan or complain: this whole thing should lead somewhere.

I think there have been two approaches raised on this thread that deserve more serious consideration. One if that of Lalwende, whose post I found extremely cogent:

There are actualy quite a lot of diverse female characters: Eowyn, Galadriel, Arwen, Luthien, Rosie, Ioreth, Haleth, Aredhel, Shelob, Ungoliant, Beruthiel, Celebrian, Erendis, Idril, Lobelia, Belladonna, Finduilas, Dis, Elwing, Melian, Elbereth, Nimrodel, Goldberry, Niennor, Andreth, Ancalime, Gilraen, The River Woman, Silmarien, Miriel...........

Anyway, I'm sure the list could be added to. I'd welcome a proper discussion on how such characters (especially Erendis, long overdue thread...) were handled and what they represented, without having to explain them away with old arguments.

I think this is an excellent suggestion.

I hesitate to blow my own horn--it's not usually my style--but I do think someone should also give more thought as to why Tolkien's treatment of women born in the First and Second Age (or even the days before) seems different than those characters depicted in Lord of the Rings. This is essentially a complementary query to what Lalwende is suggesting. I personally do not see the equivalent in LotR of Third Age characters like Andreth, Halath, Idril, Luthien, Galadriel, Erendis. Why is this so? You have a better background in Silm than I do, and I would appreciate your views on this (and anyone else who would like to chime in.) As to whether, such a discussion would be more appropriate on this thread or another, I could not say.